Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019
And what are those?
but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
He was the first Republican to fight based on (not definitively proven) accusations of fraud. The mere fact that he tried to pressure Pence into taking the blatantly ridiculous action of declaring him the winner showed that he was a fighter, if not exactly one who picked his battles well.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
Now you're just confusing things. If a guy like Trump, ready to compromise couldn't even win over enough people to vote for him, then you have no chance to win anyone over.
In fact, attitudes like yours are losing me. I find this forum more and more extreme and frankly, I find I have less in common with you people now than in 2014 when Gamergate started.
I see upvoted Hitler worship here for cripe's sake.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies
Then do so.
and not ceding an inch to the left.
Except just in this thread, you've lost inches with the moderates by your extreme views. But the echo chamber here will validate you and you won't reflect on that.
Take Roe v Wade. You'll never have a 100% abortion ban. That's impossible. You lose the majority vote when you go for that. However, compromising to first term abortions only and medical/rape exemptions, you win a majority. If you can't do that, you'll never win.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
I gave a perfect example with the Abortion debate. That is something that will only get solved with compromise. Like the Texas law and leave it up to the States. If you don't want to compromise, you'll never win and never get what you want because abortions will never be illegal at the Federal level.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
That means that you would allow a state with 55% of wokies to oppress the 45% of the population that isn't. This is not exactly a viable strategy. They'll just bludgeon them into submission, and then export them to your state so you can be corrupted as well. The side that wants to win will always beat the side that is trying not to lose.
Independant will always imply taking a bit of both and taking a few other things. It just means you don't go full tribal defending what is often times the indefensible from a bunch of career politicians.
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
Give me the 3rd side of the abortion debate please.
So Full Fascist it is.
Way to prove them right about you.
Choosing not to associate with the left and ensuring the protection of the first and second amendment is now muh fascism?
What a pathetic retort.
You can ensure that without going full Fascist. Trump did it splendidly.
Yeah he did it so splendidly that an incoherent husk is now sitting in his chair in DC while he is reduced to impotently yelling about 2020 being stolen even on his birthday today.
I always give Trump credit for what he successfully did during 2017-2019 but 2020 Trump thought naively like you did and he paid dearly for it.
Trump underestimated what the left was willing to do to get him out and the entire country is now paying for it.
I have never advocated for fascism and never will. My entire point is merely that you cannot trust the left and that there can be no compromise with them.
You can win by demonstrating the superiority of your policies and not ceding an inch to the left.
And what are those?
He was the first Republican to fight based on (not definitively proven) accusations of fraud. The mere fact that he tried to pressure Pence into taking the blatantly ridiculous action of declaring him the winner showed that he was a fighter, if not exactly one who picked his battles well.
Now you're just confusing things. If a guy like Trump, ready to compromise couldn't even win over enough people to vote for him, then you have no chance to win anyone over.
In fact, attitudes like yours are losing me. I find this forum more and more extreme and frankly, I find I have less in common with you people now than in 2014 when Gamergate started.
I see upvoted Hitler worship here for cripe's sake.
Then do so.
Except just in this thread, you've lost inches with the moderates by your extreme views. But the echo chamber here will validate you and you won't reflect on that.
Take Roe v Wade. You'll never have a 100% abortion ban. That's impossible. You lose the majority vote when you go for that. However, compromising to first term abortions only and medical/rape exemptions, you win a majority. If you can't do that, you'll never win.
"Independent" is the alternative, rejecting the 2-party system entirely. If there's a political party with anything at all like a rational platform --even a consistent and coherent one--it's the reforming Libertarian Party.
Why should the alternative to 2-party politics be "fascism"?
The guy I replied to wants 0 compromise, which implies forcing the other side to bend to your will.
"Independent" implies compromise. It implies taking from both sides to arrive at an acceptable solution for most.
No it doesn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because I've seen what a waste of time it has been for the other people in this thread that have tried.
"You have to say Black Lives Matter!"
"No."
That's not fascism, you midwit.
I gave a perfect example with the Abortion debate. That is something that will only get solved with compromise. Like the Texas law and leave it up to the States. If you don't want to compromise, you'll never win and never get what you want because abortions will never be illegal at the Federal level.
Saying "BLM" is not a policy point.
You are making inferences on what i want.
I want the right to stand up for what it believes in and not compromise civil liberties in a misguided attempt to reach unity with people who hate them.
That is not the same as forcing people to bend to your will.
Did you even bother asking what I want?
I want complete federalism where the left is free to fuck up their own states while the is right to free to make their own choices.
You cannot achieve this by ceding ground to the left.
That means that you would allow a state with 55% of wokies to oppress the 45% of the population that isn't. This is not exactly a viable strategy. They'll just bludgeon them into submission, and then export them to your state so you can be corrupted as well. The side that wants to win will always beat the side that is trying not to lose.
By "independent" I mean those who reject both the D and R parties and see the duopoly as the dead-end it is.
You can never fully reject both D and R.
Independant will always imply taking a bit of both and taking a few other things. It just means you don't go full tribal defending what is often times the indefensible from a bunch of career politicians.
Agree with most of what you say here, but this is a stretch at best.
The problem with 'compromisers' is that they compromise not on issues like abortion, but where the right has overwhelming support from the population. Almost as if it's not a compromise but ruling class ideology.
Not in the slightest. You're talking about centrists or moderates. (themselves not the same thing either) Independent can be a third path. In fact that's how I took it, so there isn't the implication you see. There are always more than two sides unless you are stuck in a controlled narrative.
For example communists, fascists, or anarcho-capitalists would be types of Independents. By "reforming Libertarian Party" I assumed he meant the Mises Caucus, which isn't borrowing from any "side".
On the practical side I don't agree with him, however. The US election system is corrupt and in bed with the elite clubs of the Ds and Rs. It's not possible for third-parties to win on a grand scale. You have to take over the existing parties, which Trump started.
Give me the 3rd side of the abortion debate please.
What is it, replacing the kid with a cyborg ?